Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

what good face ?

Canada itself has officially declared Canada to be a "genocidal white supremacist" enterprise

You mean like with an official document that has big fancy official looking emblem splashed across the top of it and a bunch of important signatures on the bottom?

No, Canada didn't do that at all.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It was a mess that spilled around the globe and left a stubborn stain that is proving hard to remove.

We're obviously going to have to live with it now but that shouldn't come at the expense of creating new messes.

OK Cuba

hasta la victoria siempre

Posted
2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You mean like with an official document that has big fancy official looking emblem splashed across the top of it and a bunch of important signatures on the bottom?

No, Canada didn't do that at all.

I was going to the Remembrance Day parade

and I saw these high school students planting flags in the ground

so I thought, that's nice to see

then I got closer

and saw that it was black upside down Canadian flags

and they said "No Pride in Genocide"

once the young believe in something, that is the nation

Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No, Canada didn't do that at all.

Canada was in an official state of mourning with flags at half mast for months on end

mourning the horrific "genocide" that Canada had wrought

then there was a national day of reckoning,

where every radio station in the country self flagellated about it

are we going to pretend that this is not the dominant narrative of Canada now ?

deeply entrenched into every institution in the Confederation

the latest addition is that the NDP wants to make it a criminal offence

to even deny that Canada has committed "genocide"

I personally wouldn't bother

let the lunatic leftist cult burn Canada to the ground

I no longer have any interest in trying to save Canada from itself : fool's errand

Edited by Dougie93
Posted
31 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I no longer have any interest in trying to save Canada from itself : fool's errand

 

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

you yourself assert that Canada is some kind of stain on the face of the world

the evil British and their evil empire

I also said it's a stain that's not going away, so you're quite safe.

The British empire was the mess - was as in past tense.  They emasculated themselves and washed their hands of it when they approached the US to carry the banner into the future.

They seem to be leaving a pretty big stain too.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

I don't feel threatened by you calling Canada "a stain on the face of the world"

Britain and the US Dougie. You appear to think that's what's threatening.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Britain and the US Dougie. You appear to think that's what's threatening.

Canada is Britain & America

United Empire Loyalists from America settle in British North America

your People's Republic of Canada doesn't exist

Posted
17 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 You appear to think that's what's threatening.

this is really just another case of pathological Canadian priggishness

where Canadians have a desperate need to pretend that they are not involved

so they can preen themselves while pointing fingers at "Britain & America"

this is the Canadian Disease

Posted
38 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Britain and the US Dougie.

we know from Edward Snowden

that Canada is fully & deeply involved in all US & UK clandestine operations around the world

as a member of Five Eyes

Canada is in no way hands clean when it comes to Anglo-American covert operations

Posted
On 4/30/2023 at 12:55 PM, blackbird said:

The Iraq war was far more complex that simply finding or not finding weapons of mass destruction as this subject article would have anyone believe.  Chretien probably made the right decision not to join the allies on this one but the reasons likely had more to do with the fact Canada was not prepared militarily and could contribute very little.

...

The Iraq War of 2003 (Desert War II) was a pivotal moment in recent world history.

Chretien's native instincts were on the right side.

====

1) Do we live in a world where the US can do what it wants? Or do we live in a world where there is a counter-balance to these Americans?

2) If the Americans invade Iraq, eliminate Saddam and change its regime, do they know how foolish they look?

3) If the Americans invade Iraq, what side will they take? (As I posted, I imagined well-meaning American guys/soldiers from Iowa invading Quebec - Sherbrooke, and trying to figure out if the woman in the apartment is Anglo or Franco.)   

Posted
1 minute ago, August1991 said:

1) Do we live in a world where the US can do what it wants? Or do we live in a world where there is a counter-balance to these Americans?

Yeah - they went and did it anyway without us. So we definitely do.

1 minute ago, August1991 said:

2) If the Americans invade Iraq, eliminate Saddam and change its regime, do they know how foolish they look?

They won, took him out, and really they don't look that foolish, nor do they care. So what's the point.

1 minute ago, August1991 said:

3) If the Americans invade Iraq, what side will they take?

Which side will who take? the iraqis? Well they'll wind up on the us side apparently.

1 minute ago, August1991 said:

(As I posted, I imagined well-meaning American guys/soldiers from Iowa invading Quebec - Sherbrooke, and trying to figure out if the woman in the apartment is Anglo or Franco.)   /

Ok.

Posted
On 5/1/2023 at 5:16 PM, I am Groot said:

And a crook. Let's not forget that.

Was Chretien a crook?

I don't want to hijack this conversation/thread.

====

I prefer Deng Xiao Peng's famous comment: who cares if the cat is black or white as long as it can catch mice.

Born a decade before, my protestant anglo grandmother had a similar idea: "That cat is a good mouser."

Posted
5 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Canada is Britain & America

United Empire Loyalists from America settle in British North America

your People's Republic of Canada doesn't exist

Then what are you worried about? I'm glad it doesn't exist either.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
4 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

we know from Edward Snowden

that Canada is fully & deeply involved in all US & UK clandestine operations around the world

as a member of Five Eyes

Canada is in no way hands clean when it comes to Anglo-American covert operations

I know but at least we're not gung ho about it. There would probably be even less money available if we were. Getting gung ho about not following the stampede to Iraq is pretty cool though. I suspect Chretien's pass on joining will be the thing about him that stands out most in history.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted
On 4/29/2023 at 10:48 PM, BeaverFever said:

You know I really resent Chretien’s gutting of public services and corporate tax giveaways that would make any conservative jealous and we’re still paying the price for those today….but his take on Iraq was bang on and took shrewdness, morality and balls of pure steel, while the other side while then other side displayed the exact opposite qualities 

I really don't think that was Chretien's choice, the state of our military was poor, we did not have much to offer at the time the Iraqi equipment was as good or better than ours at the time...And the coalition knew we would be a liability on the battle field...

we did however take part in other ways, in Gulf war I, we had a full combat hospital deployed in the desert, with F-18 flying cap missions and A large Naval presence patrolling the gulf, not to mention we had several dozens Canadian officers and men directly imbedded into American combat units.. During gulf war II , we had a much larger F-18 presence, and maritime surveillance aircraft in Qatar, and a naval task force in the gulf...So we were there just did not play in any major roles....worth noting, although a Canadian f-18 did attack an Iraqi Naval ship and fired air to air missiles at hit, and did mange to damage it...we at the time did not have the software or hardware to dumb guided munitions at the time, hence why no bombs where dropped or carried... 

We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.

Posted
On 4/30/2023 at 3:18 PM, BeaverFever said:

We sent a token force to get some US brownie points, with small air sea and land components. Cf18s were the only ones who saw combat and got to do some bombing in the final days. 

Then we did go after all, hard to give Chretien credit for something when we went anyways..

We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.

Posted
19 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Then we did go after all, hard to give Chretien credit for something when we went anyways..

No I was referring to Desert Storm under Mulroney an Bush Sr  not Bush Jrs boondoggle which we fully avoided 

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, August1991 said:

1) Do we live in a world where the US can do what it wants? Or do we live in a world where there is a counter-balance to these Americans?

You should ask the dictators in Russia, Iran, or China that question.  America has been involved in the middle east and helping Israel to survive for many decades and trying to limit the expansion of hostile powers.  You either support the west or you are supporting Commies and Islamist dictators.  The middle east is full of complex problems and the power struggles necessitate the involvement of America or hostile powers will expand their influence and control to the detriment of the west.

Edited by blackbird
Posted
29 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I really don't think that was Chretien's choice, the state of our military was poor, we did not have much to offer at the time the Iraqi equipment was as good or better than ours at the time...And the coalition knew we would be a liability on the battle field...

we did however take part in other ways, in Gulf war I, we had a full combat hospital deployed in the desert, with F-18 flying cap missions and A large Naval presence patrolling the gulf, not to mention we had several dozens Canadian officers and men directly imbedded into American combat units.. During gulf war II , we had a much larger F-18 presence, and maritime surveillance aircraft in Qatar, and a naval task force in the gulf...So we were there just did not play in any major roles....worth noting, although a Canadian f-18 did attack an Iraqi Naval ship and fired air to air missiles at hit, and did mange to damage it...we at the time did not have the software or hardware to dumb guided munitions at the time, hence why no bombs where dropped or carried... 

I think toure mixinf up the 2 gulf wars there. The famous incident with the AA missile and Iraqi PT boat is from Desert storm. It didn’t work thought he ended up strafing it setting it on fire and then a US plane eventually took it out 

RCN was deployed to the gulf didn’t do much because Canadian ships back then had no air defence capabilities. Our forces we’re officially part of the coalition but far from the front 

 

For Iraq war 2 Bush Jr Boogaloo weee sent nobody and nothing   We could have scraped up a smal tole rear echelon contingent or redirect a company of soldiers from Afghanistan or sent a ship or something symbolically like so many other countries sid. We could have just sent money or a good luck card like most of the contributors to Bushs “coalition” did just to be counted. But we refused. 

Posted
5 hours ago, eyeball said:

I know but at least we're not gung ho about it.

I would suggest that the Communications Security Establishment is Canada's most potent weapon

it is the one way that Canada wields superpower capabilities

Posted
11 hours ago, blackbird said:

The middle east is full of complex problems and the power struggles necessitate the involvement of America or hostile powers will expand their influence and control to the detriment of the west.

Well then you stand up to those hostile powers directly and you put up or shut up.

Bombing the people your enemies want to control or siccing a dictator on them is just about the stupidest thing you could do if you'd rather win them over to your side.

And if you'd rather not make friends with them then keep your freaking nose out of their business.

Treat them the way you'd like to be treated. There's nothing so complicated here that a 5 year old couldn't figure it out.

A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.

Posted

In hindsight, Chretien keeping us out of the Iraq war was the right call. But was it a 'gutsy call' when somewhere between 70-80% of Canadians were against the U.S. led invasion?  When a politician has that level of domestic support behind them it's not a 'gutsy call'.

  • Thanks 1
Posted (edited)
On 5/1/2023 at 11:54 PM, eyeball said:

The Dark Side of the Force isn't stronger, it's easier, so it's no wonder most governments sell out to or cozy up to dictators, especially since the shiniest beacon on the planet for knowing better made it so acceptable to do so.  Again I have to say it's a real spectacle watching conservatives get all woke up to how bad dictators are for everything.  You people still haven't grasped just how pivotally disastrous Operation Ajax was in terms of influencing which path the world has chosen to follow ever since however.  Maybe you'll even wince when you do.

Truman appears to have had a real sense of how getting involved with interfering in Iran in such as cynical and hypocritical manner would bite America on the ass. Chretien appears to have had the same sense with regards to Iraq and fortunately for Canada he was able to act on it.

 

The Churchill-Truman proposals. After the five day episode of Moṣaddeq’s fall and rebound which occurred between 17 and 22 July 1952 and his victory in obtaining the International Court’s judgment that it had no jurisdiction in the Iranian oil dispute, Dean Acheson, the US Secretary of State, came to the conclusion that there was no alternative to supporting Moṣaddeq as the only bulwark against communism in Iran. He suggested that the British and US governments should make joint proposals to Moṣaddeq.The Churchill-Truman proposals which were amended and improved several times were first officially presented to Dr. Moṣaddeq on 30 August 1952 by George Middleton and Loy Henderson the British and American ambassadors in Tehran and culminated in the last and final proposal of 20 February 1953 which provided for the following:

1. The management and control of the oil industry in Iran would be in the hands of the Iranians. For the first time Moṣaddeq was to be offered a settlement that did not entail foreign management and control of oil operations in Iran.

2. Compensation to be settled by the International Court of Justice on the basis of any English law of nationalization, meaning in effect, the Coal Nationalization Act of 1946. In paying the compensation, the Iranian government would be required to make payments in cash only to the extent of 25 percent of the proceeds from oil exports.

3. The USA would make a payment of $100 million to Iran against future deliveries of oil to the Defense Materials Procurement Agency.

4. The Iranian government would negotiate a long-term sales contract with an international consortium in which the AIOC would have a share.

On 7 March 1953 a communiqué was issued in Washington, stating that the US government regarded the proposals of 20 February 1953 as fair and reasonable and in keeping with the principle of oil nationalization, but on the 20 March, Moṣaddeq made a broadcast speech rejecting the proposals of 20 February. As a last resort, Moṣaddeq wrote to President Eisenhower, who had succeeded Truman, appealing for financial aid. Eisenhower’s response came in a letter delivered to Moṣaddeq by Henderson on 3 July. In the letter, Eisenhower turned down Moṣaddeq’s request for aid on the grounds that it would not be fair to spend US taxpayer’s money assisting Iran, which could have access to funds from the sale of oil if a reasonable agreement was reached on compensation. With that letter, the door for negotiations with Moṣaddeq was finally sealed (Bamberg, pp. 473-87). The failure of Dr. Moṣaddeq to settle the oil dispute coincided with severe deterioration of economic conditions and worsening of the internal political situation in Iran.

https://iranicaonline.org/articles/oil-agreements-in-iran

 

 

Mosaddeq was a nationalist (and not a communist) even though he had support from Iran's communist party. What they both had in common was a dislike for Britain having control over their oil production. Mosaddeq welcomed the US as a mediator in trying to settle the disputes with Britain over the oil embargo and any further oil concession agreements. The US believed Mosaddeq was a person they could deal with and saw Iranian nationalism as the best defense against any communist takeover. The US believed the best way to solve this dilemma was with nationalization and fair compensation. But Mosaddeq put himself in a complex situation with deals made with other domestic political factions and couldn't sign the agreement. The US sees a situation with the economy tanking and all the political unrest as being ripe for communism to move in.  It was at this point that decisions were made by the US and Britain that Mosaddeq had to go for the good of everyone.

 

Edited by suds

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...